Here are 10 things Trump and Republicans in Congress have done that could hurt American workers

U.S.
President Donald Trump walks from Marine One as he returns from a
day trip to Wisconsin on the South Lawn of the White House in
WashingtonThomson
Reuters

We are nearly 100 days into President Donald Trump’s
administration, a benchmark that gives us a chance to take stock
of what the president and new Congress have accomplished and what
their priorities are. We have seen a flurry of activity—from
legislation and executive orders, as well as actions taken (or
not taken) by the administration—that, sometimes subtly, shift
power away from working people and towards corporations and the 1
percent. Some of these actions have been high profile, but others
have gone almost unnoticed. Taken together, they undercut wages
and protections for working people.

EPI’s Perkins Project tracks actions by the administration,
Congress, and the courts that affect people’s wages and their
rights at work. Here are the top ten things the president and
Congress have done that affect working people. For more, see our
Worker
Rights and Wages Policy Watch, which is continuously updated
with information on the steps taken that affect workers.

Protecting Wall Street profits that siphon billions of
dollars from retirement savers. At President
Trump’s behest, the Department of Labor has delayed a rule
requiring that financial professionals recommend retirement
investment products that serve their clients’ best interests.
The “fiduciary rule” aims to stop the losses savers incur when
steered into products that earn advisers commissions and fees.
The rule was supposed to go into effect April 10. For every
seven days that the rule is delayed, retirement savers lose
$431 million over the next 30 years. The
60-day delay will cost workers saving for retirement $3.7 billion over 30 years.

Letting employers hide fatal injuries that happen on
their watch. The Senate approved a resolution
making it harder to hold employers accountable when they
subject workers to dangerous conditions. The March 22
resolution blocks a rule requiring that employers keep accurate
logs of workplace injuries and illnesses for five years. This
time frame captures not just individual injuries but track
records of unsafe conditions. President Trump said he would
sign the resolution. If he does, employers can fail to
maintain—or falsify—their injury and illness logs, making them
less likely to suffer the consequences when workers are injured
or killed. Blocking this rule also means that employers,
OSHA, and workers cannot use what they learn from past mistakes
to prevent future tragedies. If the rule is overturned,
more workers will be injured, and responsible
employers will be penalized.

Allowing potentially billions of taxpayer dollars to go
to private contractors who violate health and safety
protections or fail to pay workers. The federal
government pays contractors hundreds of billions of dollars every year
to do everything from manufacturing military aircraft to
serving food in our national parks. The Fair Pay and Safe
Workplaces rule required that companies vying for these
lucrative contracts disclose previous workplace violations, and
that those violations be considered when awarding federal
contracts. The rule was needed, as major federal contractors
were found to be regularly engaging in illegal practices
thatharm workers financially and endanger their
health and safety. On March 27, President Trump killed this
rule by signing a congressional resolution blocking it. This
will hurt workers and contractors who play by the rules, while
benefitting only those contractors with records of cutting
corners.

Undermining important regulations that protect workers
and consumers. On January 30, President Trump
issued an executive order mandating that for every new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified
for elimination. This “2-for-1” executive order requires
federal agencies to assess whether a regulation is worthwhile
based solely on costs—regardless of the benefits of the
regulation. For example, an EPA regulation issued in 2015
that prevents dumping toxic pollutants into streams and
wetlands could certainly represent a higher cost to companies
that will need to take additional steps to properly dispose of
their waste. But the obvious benefits—keeping toxic waste out
of our major water resources—far outweighs the costs to
businesses. (The Trump administration has already ordered the EPA to rescind or revise this rule.)
This emphasis on costs threatens regulations that protect
workers, consumers, and the environment.

Cutting pay for construction workers on federally
funded infrastructure projects. On January 30,
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced
the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act. The Davis-Bacon act requires that
construction workers engaged in federally funded construction
projects be paid no less than the local prevailing wage.
Careful research has shown that the act protects both the living standards of construction workers and the
competitiveness of local construction firms bidding against
transient contractors who might win federal contracts by using
less-skilled workers. Repealing Davis-Bacon would save
taxpayers money purely by taking a chunk of construction
workers’ wages. It would not actually make projects to build
roads and schools and other public goods more efficient.

Putting the brakes on overtime pay for the middle
class. The administration has made no move to
support a 2016 rule that would extend overtime pay protections
to millions of workers. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
most salaried workers making less than a given annual salary
are automatically entitled to overtime pay if they work more
than 40 hours per week. The threshold aims to protect low- and
moderate-earning salaried workers from being required to work
excessive hours without compensation. Over the years, the
threshold has been eroded by inflation, and the current
threshold of $23,660 is below the poverty line for a family of
four. In 2016, the Department of Labor raised the threshold to
$47,476. While this rule is on hold under a court order, the
administration has made its priorities clear. President Trump’s
first nominee for Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, opposed
the rule. And after Puzder withdrew from consideration for the
post, in his confirmation hearing the new nominee, Alexander
Acosta, declined to assert support for the rule or even the
department’s authority to raise the threshold. Raising the
overtime salary threshold would directly benefit a broad range of working
people, including 4.2 million parents and 7.3 million
children.

Slashing the budget for the Department of Labor,
hindering its ability to enforce wage theft and worker safety
laws or provide job training programs. The
“skinny budget” released by the White House on March 16
includes a 21 percent cut to the Department of Labor’s
budget.Indifference or worse about the plight of
U.S. workers is the message sent by cutting a fifth of the
budget of the key agency that protects workers from being
killed or injured on the job, safeguards workers’ pay and
benefits, and provides displaced workers with job training and
unemployment benefits.

Declining to raise the minimum wage and lift pay for
low-wage workers. As of January 1, 29
states and the District of Columbia have a minimum wage
that is higher than the federal minimum wage. In 2017 alone,
minimum wage increases in 19 states will provide over $4.2 billion in additional wages to nearly 4.3
million affected workers in 2017 and will make a real,
although modest, difference in the lives of workers and their
families. But the federal minimum wage of $7.25 has not been
raised since 2009 and is worth 25 percent less than its peak
value in 1968. This decline in purchasing power means low-wage
workers have to work longer hours just to achieve the standard
of living that was considered the bare minimum almost half a
century ago. On the campaign trail,President Trump spoke favorably of raising the
federal minimum wage. It’s time to see bold action on this
sentiment that could lift pay for the bottom quarter or more of
the workforce.